Mumbai Court March 1995 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
V.V. Rao Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1995
Reported in: [1996]217ITR843(Bom)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner who claims to be a tax informer under the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeks payment of reward in respect of information in relation to evasion of tax of about Rs. 22 crores. In the petition, it is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of assurance given by the respondents, viz., respondent No. 3, the petitioner gave information to the Commissioner of Income-tax with regard to tax evasion as far back as in 1984. The respondents gave an interim reward of Rs. 10,000 for information given by the petitioner under the certificate dated November 16, 1984. The petitioner now claims 20 per cent. of the amount of Rs. 22 crores as and by way of reward for giving information to the department in respect of tax evasion by various persons whose names are given. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that despite several representations, no reply has been given. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the fact that the petitioner is ...
Trade Team (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1995
Reported in: (1995)54ITD306(Mum.)
1. The first issue raised in this appeal relates to the disallowance of Rs. 2,26,116 in respect of short-term capital loss on the sale of 2284 shares of Annapurna Foods Pvt. Ltd. 2. Assessee had purchased 484 shares of the aforesaid company on 3-1-1980 and 1800 shares on 21-12-1981 at the rate of Rs. 100 per share. These shares had been sold by the assessee to minors of one Mitha group the managing shareholders of Annapurna Foods Pvt. Ltd. at the rate of Re. 1 per share. Thus, there was a loss of Rs. 2,26,116 which was claimed by the assessee as short-term capital loss. This loss has been disallowed by the Assessing Officer by invoking the Explanation to section 73. The CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Assessee is in appeal before us.3. The learned counsel for the assessee has argued before us that assessee is not a dealer in shares and it purchased the shares as an investment. Even in the balance-sheet these shares have been shown as investment. It was ...
Dhanraj Lilaram Motwani and Another Vs. Rajendra Kumar Dayachand JaIn ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom3; 1995(4)BomCR659
ORDER1. Heard Shri J.N.Chandurkar, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Shri Chandurkar submits that the discretion exercised by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gondia, in refusing to grant adjournment was not proper and not in consonance with the principles of natural justice. 3. Before considering the question raised by Shri Chandurkar, some facts may be noted. One Dayachand Jain filed a suit for possession, arrears of rent and damages against the present applicants and the said suit was filed after he obtained permission of the Rent Controller to determine the tenancy of the tenants. The suit for possession, arrears of rent and damages was decreed on 13-1-1991 and an application for determination of mense profits was filed under Order XX, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'C.P.C.) The said proceedings under Order XX, Rule 12, C.P.C. continued and from time to time the applicants sought time. On 21-7-1994, since by that time the judgment-debtors had sought lot of ...
Mohan S/O Suryabhan Chandan Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through P.S.O ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR698; 1995CriLJ3022; 1996(1)MhLj397
1. This appeal by the appellant/accused Mohan is directed against the judgment and order dt/- 17th June, 1994, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more. Originally, the appellant/accused along with two others viz. Sk. Babrya s/o Sk. Mahboob and Gulabkha Kismatkhan, were chargesheeted and prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. All the three accused were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 read with S. 34 of I.P.C. However, the present appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C. 2. The facts in brief are as under : On 31/3/1993 at about 10 to 10.30 A.M. the complainant/victim - Kailas Chiranjilal Sharma was sitting near the house of one Thakre in village D...
Anant U. Haldankar and ors. Vs. Narayan Jaideo Haldankar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1995
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR518
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. Rule, by consent, taken up for final hearing. This revision is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, dated 20th February, 1993 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 8/93/A in Special Civil Suit No. 119/1982/A whereby the learned Civil Judge has dismissed an application for amendment of the plaint. The case of the applicants is that they had filed against the respondents a suit for partition on the ground that they are in possession of half share. The respondents 1 and 2 admitted their ownership but raised a plea of adverse possession and a cloud was cast on there title because their names did not figure in the record of rights. Therefore the applicants sought to amend the plaint in order to incorporate therein a prayer seeking a declaration that they are the owners of half share of the property and that they are in joint possession of the same seeking therefore for a decree of partition and separation of shares. The respond...
Sitaram Ganpat Hanumante Since Deceased by His Legal Representatives a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1995
Reported in: 1995(4)BomCR540
M.L. Dudhat, J. 1. This second appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 8th February, 1985 passed by the Assistant Judge, Thane, in Civil Appeal No. 260 of 1982 preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13th April, 1982 passed by the III Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Thane, in Regular Civil Suit No. 263 of 1977. By the aforesaid decision the lower Appellate Court confirmed the decision of the trial Court.2. The appellants in this case are the legal representatives of original plaintiff who filed the suit for possession of the suit premises which consists of room being Room No. 14 admeasuring about 12' x 10' in a chawl known as Baithya Bohari Chawl, opposite Old Bohra Cemetary, bearing Tika No. 12, House No. 87 on Govind Bachaji Road, Charai, Thane. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that somewhere in the month of May 1973 the defendant approached him for accommodating her temporarily as she had lost her residential accommodation. Out of sympathy he...
Chimote and Sons and ors. Vs. Deodatta S/O. Shankarrao Bodhankar and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1995
Reported in: 1996(5)BomCR303
A.A. Desai, J.1. These appeals are directed against a judgment and decree dated 25-1-1979 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati. They are heard together and decided by this common judgment.2. The litigation has chequred history. It also carries intricate questions of facts and law. Relevant for the purposes of adjudication is thus :One Balkrishna Bodhankar acquired the suit property, namely, house at Amravati and agricultural field at Mouza Rahatgaon. In 1918, he died. His son Shankarrao (defendant No. 1) took the possession and management of the suit property on behalf of Hindu undivided family which consisted of self and sons - Deodatta (plaintiff), Jagdish (defendant No. 3) and Jaiprakash (defendant No. 4).On 24-1-1951, Shankarrao entered into agreement to sell suit house in favour of Chimotes. On 14-3-1951, one Dhapubai, in execution of decree obtained against Shankarrao (defendant No. 1), attached the suit house and put to auction. On 9-7-1951, Shankarrao pursuant t...
Shri Sunil Ragunath Karmalkar Vs. State of Goa Through Chief Secretory ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1995
Reported in: 1996(4)BomCR345
E.S. Da Silva, J.1. The petitioner challenges in this writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the appointments of respondents 4 to 6 as lecturers made by the respondent No. 1 to the Goa College of Engineering in violation of the Recruitment Rules and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is, therefore, seeking not only a declaration that these appointments are illegal but also a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to set aside and quash the said appointments. A further relief is prayed in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to send a requisition to the Goa Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission'), respondent No. 3, to advertise the posts to be filled on regular basis. By way of interim relief pending the disposal of the writ petition a further prayer was advanced to restrain the respondents 1 and 2 in giving the...
Manohar Son of Bapurao Sapre Vs. Bhaurao Son of Tukaramji Shirbhate an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1995
Reported in: AIR1996Bom29; 1995(4)BomCR661; 1995(2)MhLj336
The case debated on the petition for probate of a will was filed before the Civil Judge - It was held that the appeal would lie against District Judge with regard to Section 276 of the Succession Act, 1925JUDGEMENT1. The legality and correctness of the passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Amravati on 10th April, 1987 reversing the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati on 18-2-1983 is under challenge in this revision application.2. The only contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the applicant is that the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati while deciding the petition for probate under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act was discharging the duties of the District Judge and therefore no appeal lay before the District Judge and the judgment passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati on 18th February, 1983 could have only been challenged before the High Court. In this connection the learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance...
All India Central Bank Officers Federation and Others Vs. Central Bank ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1995
Reported in: 1995(3)BomCR703; (1995)97BOMLR314; (1997)IIILLJ555Bom
1. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, striking down the fitment formula for officers set out in the settlement dated November 27, 1991 signed between the respondent-Bank and All India Central Bank Employees Federation. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 are the members of Petitioner No. 1 Federation having its office at Bombay. The respondent-Bank has two types of employees; award (clerical) staff and officer staff. The wages of the award staff are settled at the industry levell with the All India Bank Employees Association (which is hereinafter called as 'AIBEA') which represents only award staff. The wages of officer staff are settled at the industry level with All India Bank Officers Confederation (which is hereinafter called as 'AIBOC') which represents only officers staff and to which the petitioner-Federation is affiliated. It is submitted that when a clerk is p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›
- Last »